
BX 960 

.07 

lopy 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Bit; * »to 

Ch;i|i. iijpfi?it)P Iffo..:...... 



UNITED STATES OF AMEKICA. 



PAPAL SUPREMACY, 



Examined in the Light of Scripture and Eeason. 

A LECTURE, 

Delivered in New York, 

By tlae R.e"V. IB. QTTIIIxrisr, 

Formerly Priest of the Roirjan Catholic Church. 



locxJ. 



PUBLISHED BY BROMFIELD & CO., 658 BROADWAY 



L880. 



o Act of Congress in the 
y Bernard L. Quinn, 
the Librarian of Congress, at Washin 



of Congress 

WASHINGTON 



PAPAL SUPREMACY, 

Examined in the light of Scripture and Reason. 



J± LECTURE, 

Delivered in New York, 
By the Rev. B. L. QUINN, 

Formerly Priest of the Roman Catholic Church. 



Tins question is one of great importance to the people of 
the United States. If the people admit that the Pope 
governs by divine right and divine appointment — that he 
has been appointed of God, like Jesus Christ and through 
Peter, to govern all mankind, as he claims — then they 
must submit to all the religious demands he may make 
upon them or their children. This is a fundamental question, 
therefore, and concerns one of the fundamental doctrines 
of the Roman system. It is rapidly coming before the 
minds of the American people, whether Romanism or the 
American constitution and laws shall govern the country. 
If it can be shown without doubt that the Pope of Rome 
stands by divine right in place of God Almighty, then the 
people ought to submit to his direction. We shall find be- 
fore we get through how the Romanist undertakes to prove 
this claim. 

To be honest with the people, I think it best to quote, 
not the Protestant bible, but the Roman Catholic bible, 
the very book I used when I officiated in the Roman 
Church. How do the Roman Catholic clergy prove that 



2 



Papal Supremacy. 



the Pope governs by divine right % They quote Scripture 
to prove it, and they know that the people generally are 
disposed to believe the Scriptures. 

The leading passage in support of this doctrine of papal 
supremacy is found in St. Matthew's gospel, 16th chapter. 

Jesus saith to them (the disciples) : But whom do you say that I 
am ? Simon Peter answering, said : Thou art Christ, the son of the 
living God. And Jesus answering, said to him : Blessed art thou 
Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, 
but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee : That thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it. 

They claim that Christ in this declaration meant Peter, 
and therefore meant to build or establish His church upon 
Peter. They claim that the Pope succeeds Peter, and by 
right of succession, has also the right to govern the whole 
Church, and that as all the people ought to be Christians, 
the Pope has a right to govern all people ; that the gates of 
hell — meaning all the powers of opposition — will never be 
able to prevail against the Church established thus on Peter 
by Jesus Christ, and having therefore the sanction of God 
the Father, and the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost. 
People who are not accustomed to reason closely, and who 
are taught to place implicit confidence in the teachings of 
the clergy, readily conclude from this that protestantism 
is outside of the Church, and that therefore protestants 
are outside of the lines of salvation. 

Now in opposition to all this we assert that Christ did 
not appoint Peter to rule, and hold supremacy over his 
Church. He did not mean in this or any other passage to 
make Peter the foundation of His Church. What did 
He mean then by this passage % By ' ' this rock, ' ' he m eant 
something that could not be shaken by the powers of the 
earth or the powers under the earth, and that something, 
was His own divinity. The examination of Scripture shows 
that St. Peter was shaken by the voice of a maid. Did 



Papal Supremacy. 



3 



Christ mean to build His Church upon a rock that could be 
shaken by the voice of a maid ? Would such a founda- 
tion be able to prevail against all the powers of hell ? 
Christ then did not mean to build on Peter nor upon the 
other apostles — and Peter was the shakiest of them all. 
No ; Christ meant His own divine power and knowledge ; 
in other words His divinity. Earthly systems are built on 
things liable to change, but Christ came to oppose all 
wrong religions, and to establish His Church on something 
that cannot be shaken by reason or by philosophy. If the 
Church were founded on human reason or passions it would 
change ; if it was founded on man it would change ; but it 
is based on God, and can never change, but will always 
stand against the powers of earth and hell. The " rock " is 
Christ' s Divinity, not Peter. 

But to examine this more closely. Our Saviour said to 
St. Peter : " Whom do men say that I am ? And he said : 
Thou art Christ the Son of the living God." That is the 
declaration of Peter, and Christ commended him, but did 
not praise him very much. He said : 

Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not 
revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 

Now if Christ meant to establish His Church upon Peter, 
did he mean the man Peter, or the mind or soul of Peter, 
or the word Peter % The Roman clergy say that petros 
means rock. They know that ninety- nine people out of 
every hundred do not know Greek from Hebrew ; but let 
me ask, if any of these things had been meant, why would 
it have been required to make a revelation of them to Peter % 
Was it requisite that God should reveal to him that his 
name was Peter, and not Jacob, John, or Bartholemew % 
No. But a special revelation as to the fact of Christ's di- 
vinity was necessary. And when Christ got the true con- 
fession out of the mouth of the wavering Peter — when He 
got that vacillating, weak minded man to declare that Jesus 
was the Christ the Son of the living God, He said : That is 



4 



Papal Supremacy. 



just what I want. I wanted to know that you believed that I 
am divine — the Son of God. Since you have declared that, I 
am to declare to you that upon that fact — upon my divinity, 
I undertake to establish my Church ; not upon Peter, or 
James, or John, but upon my divinity. He drew that decla- 
ration rrom Peter, and wished to have witnesses to the fact. 

If Christ meant Peter, why did he not say 'upon thee % y 
or use the plural and say, 'upon you will I build my Churchf 
Why did he not say — Upon the name Peter, because it 
means a rock, I am going to build my Church ; or upon 
your mind, or your body, or upon you \ No. He said, 
" Upon this rock " — something apart from Peter — the di- 
vine power of God coming to earth in the person of Christ. 
Upon that he was going to build the Church. 

To show that he did mean His divinity, or that He was 
speaking in relation to something divine, we have His 
statement in this chapter, which the Roman Catholic clergy 
very dishonestly conceal from the people. ' ' Then He com- 
manded the disciples that they should tell no man." Tell 
what % That he had founded His Church upon Peter I 
That was the very thing the people ought to know. If He 
was going to build upon this man it was necessary to tell 
the world that he was going to do so, and that the succes- 
sors of this great man were to be called Popes. But He 
commanded that they should tell no man at that time, that 
Jesus was the Christ — that He was the Pock. 

Then from this same chapter we learn that St. Peter him- 
self did not understand that he had been appointed to this 
position. That is more than we could expect from any one 
here. If any one here were to be appointed Governor of the 
State of New York, he would be likely to know it, and he 
would be likely to feel pretty big — as big as any half-dozen 
of us. If St. Peter had been appointed to such an honor- 
able position as the Head of the Church would he not 
recognize the fact, and show it in his conduct % 

As they journeyed along Christ began to talk about their 



4 



Papal Supremacy. 5 



going to Jerusalem. "And Peter taking Mm began to re- 
buke him. 5 ' Now would any one in tliis assembly rebuke a 
person wlio had just appointed him to be the Governor of 
New York ? And is it not a much more important office to 
be a Ruler in the Church of God % And jet Peter rebuked 
Christ. » 

4 ' And the Saviour said, ' ' Get thee behind me Satan, ' ' or 
as the Roman Catholic Testament has it : " Go after me 
Satan. " Is it possible that Christ appointed Peter to be 
the foundation of the Church, and then in a few minutes 
after called him Satan ? Is it possible that Satan was to 
be the Ruler of Christ's Church — the man who behaved in 
such a way as to get such a terrible rebuke from Christ ? 
Is it possible that Christ did not know better than this, to 
appoint a man to be the Governor of His Church and directly 
afterwards to turn round and rebuke him ? One would 
suppose that St. Peter would have been very quiet and 
humble after his appointment, and that our Lord would 
talk to him about his position, and the care of His 
people ; but instead of that he calls him Satan. We 
do not want Satan to govern the Christian Church ; and 
yet there is a great deal of Satanic power in those who rule 
in that Church, or rather claim to ride by the authority of 
God. This claim has for years been an affront to God, and 
the source of terrible oppression upon millions of poor 
people. 

Furthermore he says, "Thou art a scandal unto me." 
Is it possible that the Head of the Church should be a 
scandal to Christ % Would Christ appoint a man to be 
the head of the Church who was to be a scandal unto him % 

" Thou dost not relish (savorest not) the things that are 
of God, but the things that are of men." Was not the 
€hurch a thing of God % Was not morality a thing of God \ 
Was not the position itself a thing of God if it were created 
hy Christ % Was not the government of the Church a thing 
of God if organized by Christ ? How then could Christ, as 



6 



Papal Supremacy. 



a truthful speaker and teacher, say to St. Peter that he 
did not understand the things of God, or his position, 
office, and responsibility, and yet make such a man the 
Governor of His Church \ He did not make him the Gov- 
ernor of His Church. He could not appoint him, because 
St. Peter turned out to be a scandal to Him, and there- 
fore a scandal to those associated with Him. And yet 
there are men claiming to govern the Church as the suc- 
cessors of St. Peter ; and indeed, they may have the right 
of succession to Satan ! 

We have another instance recorded in St. Mark' s gospel 
showing that Christ meant to set forth his divine power as 
the foundation of His Church. We read, chapter 14, V. 
61 : 

But He (Christ) held his peace and answered nothing. Again the 
High Priest asked Him, and said to Him, Art thou the Christ, the 
Son of the blessed God? And Jesus said to Him, " I am." 

That was the simple yet profound and positive declara- 
tion of Christ. " I am." 

We find in the Acts of the Apostles a passage which 
shows that a belief in the divinity of Christ was the pre- 
requisite or the condition of mind required before baptism. 
Acts 8: 35. 

And Philip opening his mouth, and beginning at that Scripture,, 
preached to him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came to 
a certain water ; and the eunuch saith : See ; here is water ; what 
hindereth me from being baptised ? And Philip said : If thou be- 
lievest with thy whole heart, thou mayest. And he answering said : 
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded 
the chariot to stand still : and they both went down into the water,. 
Philip and the eunuch; and he baptised him. 

This was the great requirement, or test. Do you be- 
lieve that Jesus Christ is divine % I do. That he is the 
Son of God ? I do. On this condition I baptise you ; 
that is what was required. ISTot a belief in the papacy, or 
in the papal doctrines or catechism, but a belief in Christy 
on whom the Church is established. 



Papal Supremacy. 



7 



TTliat is tlie Church 1 Popularly speaking it means the 
assembly of the people who believe in Christ. Upon that 
belief the Church is founded. Not upon man, or man's 
doctrines, regulations or commandments ; but upon the 
fact of Christ's divinity. To show that St. Peter denied 
this faith we quote the words of the Catholic Testament. 
Matt. 26 : 69. 

But Peter sat without in the palace : and there came to him a ser- 
vant maid saying : Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. But he 
denied before them all, saying : I know not what thou sayest. And 
as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him ; and she saithto 
them that were there : This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. 
And again he denied with an oath : I do not know the man. 

Would not that be a source of great scandal in the 
Christian Church, that the very leader, the governor of the 
Church should swear that he did not even know Jesus 
Christ ? Is that the man upon whom the Church is built % 
Is there a business man in the City of New York who 
would entrust his business, and even his family affairs, 
during six months absence in Europe, to a man that he 
knew would betray his best interests % He could not. Is 
it possible that Jesus Christ did not know as much as an 
ordinary business man ? Is not the government or train- 
ing of the Christian Church and family as important as 
the conduct of any business or the care of any family in 
this city \ And if a man of ordinary foresight and 
sagacity would not trust his business affairs to such a 
man, how could Christ entrust His Church to one 
who would deny Him \ That would be appointing a 
man who would very easily be shaken. And yet Christ 
said that he would build upon a Rock that would stand 
against all the powers of hell. You see, Christ did not 
say that he was going to build upon Peter — upon the name, 
or the body, or the mind of Peter — but upon ' this Rock.' 
This ought to be well understood by all the people. It 
was upon his own divine power and authority that He 
built His Church. 



8 



Papal Supremacy. 



I need not read the other passages which give Peter' s 
denial, because they are all about the same, and most Pro- 
testants, at least, are well acquainted with them. 

Another thing seems strange. We have in the Epistle 
to the Galatians a proof of Peter's infidelity.. This was 
after the ascension of Jesus Christ. If Peter had been ap- 
pointed the governor of the Church we must suppose him to 
be a very faithful man, converted from his sins of denial, 
honest, upright, and unflinching, never wavering, exem- 
plary, and deceiving no one in any respect whatever — a man 
above and beyond all censure from anybody. What is the 
fact ? St. Paul says that when Peter was come to An- 
tioch he withstood him to his face — there is the declaration 
of a very honest man — "because he was to be blamed." 
There was this governor of the Church, deserving the cen- 
sure of Paul just as he deserved the censure of Christ. Is 
it possible that Christ would appoint to this position a 
man who had to be admonished and rebuked in this 
way 3 We read in Gal. 2 : 11. 

But when Cephas (Peter) was come to Antioch, I withstood him 
to the face, because he was blameable. For before that some came 
from James he did eat with the Gentiles ; but when they were come 
he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing those who were of the 
circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews con- 
sented ; so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimula- 
tion. 

You say that this refers to practice, not doctrine. No 
matter. I reply that Peter ought to be consistent in prac- 
tice as well as doctrine. And yet here is the testimony of 
St. Paul that this supposed head of the Church did not 
walk uprightly according to the doctrines of Christ. What 
did Christ say when he sent out the Apostles? "Go 
preach the gospel, heal the sick, drive out evil spirits." 
He did not say, Peter, I appoint thee to be the ruler, the 
bishop, the governor, the pope. He sent them all out with 



Papal Supremacy. 



9 



equal power to preach the gospel. And here is a man 
who had to be censured by St. Paul. 

The Roman Church, claims to have the deposit of faith 
because it was committed altogether to St. Peter by our 
Saviour ; and yet here is this very man faithless to the 
gospel. No wonder that we have so much infidelity in that 
system. 

TTe must suppose that St. Peter, after the descent of 
the Holy Ghost, would have understood what was right to 
teach the people, and that the religion which he then pro- 
claimed, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, ought 
to be in substance and in the main, the religion of Peter. I 
put the matter in this way because it is said by the Roman 
Church that after the three denials, St. Peter was perfect. 
And yet, as I have shown you, he was guilty of dissimu- 
lation, according to St. Paul in the Galatians ; and I think 
that St. Paul would not tell a lie. Well, after the descent 
of the Holy Ghost, one would think that the Ruler of the 
Church could not make a mistake. This is the passage : 
Acts 2 : 37-47.) 

Now when they (the people) had heard these things, they had com- 
punction in their heart ; and they said to Peter and to the rest of the 
Apostles : What shall we do, men brethren ? But Peter said to them : 
[The protestant version has it repent] Do penance, (said he) and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all 
that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with 
a great many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: 
Save yourselves from this perverse generation. They, therefore, that 
received his word, were baptised ; and there were added to them in 
that day, three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the 
doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking 
of bread, and in prayers, and fear came upon every soul ; and many 
wonders and signs were done by the Apostles in Jerusalem ; and there 
was great fear in all ; &c. V. 47. And the Lord added dajly to their 
society such as should be saved. 

This was the declaration of St. Peter immediately after 
his special enlightenment by the Holy Ghost. What were 



10 



Papal Supremacy. 



the people to do \ " Repent and be baptized every man of 
yon, in the name of the Lord Jesus." [The Roman version 
has it, 'Do penance &c.,'] Did he say I am Rnler of the 
Chnrch ; obey my commandments, and do as the clergy 
say, or yon will be cast ont ? No ; bnt ' repent and be bap- 
tized, believing in the divinity of the Lord Jesns Christ, 
and yon shall be saved.' That is the snbstance of the 
Christian system as to belief. Nothing is said as to the 
system of government of the Chnrch ; there was none 
at that time. Christ held, and still holds the primacy in 
everything ; we have no proof that He gave that primacy 
to anyone. He gave authority to preach and to teach — 
bnt He has not surrendered His power. He has it to-day, 
and we ought to thank God that He retains it, and has not 
given it to men who are weak and fallible, and liable to dis- 
simulate for their own benefit and their own power. He 
could not do it, otherwise we would have to say that all the 
crimes committed in that system are committed by the au- 
thority of the Saviour. He is not the author of sin. 

St. Paul wrote a great deal, and he never speaks of Peter 
as the head of the Church. Is it possible, if Peter had that 
office, that St. Paul did not know it % Is it possible that the 
Holy Grhost omitted that one point % Our Saviour told his 
disciples that all things should be brought to their recol- 
lection ; and yet in all their writings we have nothing to 
show that any one of them believed that Peter was the head 
of the Church. There was only one head of the Church — 
Jesus Christ. Their great mission was, not to establish an 
ecclesiastical system, but to proclaim their belief in the 
divinity of Christ, to preach repentance and faith. Sim- 
plicity of belief and devotion were the great characteristics 
of the early Christian Church. There was about them 
none of the pontifical glory that surrounds the papal throne. 
Christ's mission in the Christian Church was to save the 
people and to let these earthly glories pass away — to win 
the people from too much attachment to these things. 



Papal Supeemacy. 



11 



I will now quote a passage from St. John bearing upon 
this subject of papal supremacy. John 21 : 15. 

When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter : Simon 
son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to Him : 
Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him : Feed 
my lambs. He saith to him again : Simon son of John, lovest thou 
me ? He saith to Him : Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. 
He saith to him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him the third time r 
Simon son of John, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved, because He 
said to him the third time, lovest thou me ? And he said to Him : 
Lord thou knowest all things : thou knowest that I love thee. He 
saith to him : Feed my sheep. 

The Romanist says that Christ gave to St. Peter in these 
words about feeding the lambs and the sheep the power to 
govern not only the people, but the clergy — the entire flock, 
the Christian family. They usually preach to the people 
that our Saviour by the word sheep meant the clergy, and re- 
ferred to the people as the lambs. Now, if you were to 
call the clergy of the Pomish Church a set of sheep, I 
think they would not be at all pleased, but indignant and 
offended. They claim to be rulers and leaders. They 
bear the title of lords and princes, but not by any 
means sheep. So that there is nothing in that argu- 
ment if properly analyzed, and it is hardly worth consid- 
eration. What Christ meant was that Peter should have 
care over old and young — those who were recently con- 
verted, and those who had been converted some time ; over 
all the people. He did not say to St. Peter, ' I wish you to 
understand that I make you the only one in the Church 
who is to take care of the people, and I do not wish the 
rest of the Apostles to occupy that position.' Sometimes 
as we do, Christ would speak to one meaning all, and some- 
times to all meaning one. This is common to all languages. 
We have nothing to show that when he spoke to Peter he 
excluded the rest. On the contrary, we have St. Paul 
giving very specific instruction about ordaining the clergy , 



12 



Papal Supremacy. 



telling them that the bishops, priests, and deacons should be 
married men ; whereas you know the Roman Church does 
not permit them to marry. Paul did not quarrel with Peter 
about the supremacy, because there was no supremacy to 
quarrel about. Every one felt that he must do all he 
could to spread the gospel. 

And now let me enquire why, if the Roman Church be in 
earnest, it does not show more respect to the city in which 
Peter lived, or the country in which the people witnessed 
so many things relating to Christ — the city in which Peter 
preached his first great sermon ? Why did not St. Peter found 
his See in Jerusalem % Christ did not tell him to establish 
a See in Jerusalem, or in Pome, or in Antioch. If these 
men are consistent they should make Jerusalem the seat of 
the Christian Church, for that is where the first Christian 
Church was established. I suppose that the three thousand 
souls converted on the day of Pentecost would be enough 
to make a very respectable congregation. Why then did they 
not keep their See in Jerusalem % Did God ever command 
them to transfer it to Pome or any other city % But they 
say, Peter had his See in Pome, and lived there so long, 
and governed the whole Church. We have not time to dis- 
cuss the question whether Peter ever went to Pome at "all. 

If, as they contend, Peter wrote his first epistle from 
Pome, they must admit that he calls Rome Babylon, (1 Pet. 
5. 13) and they may have it so ; and then the reference in 
the Apocalypse to Babylon will be consistently explained. 
It is true that according to the Romanist, the Babylon of 
the Apocalypse is London, because it is a very wicked place. 
By and by they will say that New York is Babylon. Sup- 
posing therefore that St. Peter did live at Rome, we do not 
find the Apostles talking about the See of Rome. All their 
preaching and writing is about saving souls, and yet, the 
Roman Church is all the time preaching and writing about 
Rome and the primacy of St. Peter. The fact is that from the 
beginning until the end of time Christ will have the primacy 



Papal Supremacy. 



13 



of the Church, and it never will be given to any man. Almost 
any man occupying such a position would soon be beside 
himself, and would fail in the discharge of his duty, not 
having moral strength to resist all the influences that would 
draw him away. 

Again I ask, if Rome is the place of authority and the 
See of the Church, how came the papal seat to be changed 
(in the 14th century) to Avignon in France \ There 
were seven popes who resided in Avignon, and their the See 
remained for seventy-three years. They were attracted 
thither by a feeling of nationality, because the first pope 
who lived there (Pope Clement V.) was a Frenchman. And 
then the popes thought they would get more money in 
France than in Italy. At the end of this period of seventy- 
three years, began what is know as the great schism or 
split, not among the people, but among the popes. At 
one time there were two popes, not blessing each other as 
you might suppose, but frantically cursing one another. 
And then there were three popes, also cursing each other. 
Who was the right pope % Who was the successor of 
Peter % Who was appointed by Jesus Christ % They say 
there has been no break in the succession, but where was 
the succession when there were three popes, and when the 
council deposed one and another, and they fell to cursing 
and denouncing each other ! 

Were these popes laboring like Peter and the other 
Apostles for the salvation of souls, the advancement of 
morality and the edification of the Church? No, they 
were laboring to maintain their power, to obtain wealth and 
honor, and for the preservation of their office and title, and 
they were a curse and scandal to all Christendom. 

Did our Saviour create such an office to be the cause of so 
much scandal % The Romanists blame the reformers, and 
denounce the reformation, but the great schism, as it is 
called, gave many of the Roman clergy the courage to 
speak the truth, and so led on to the Reformation. The 



14 



Papal Supremacy. 



people began to find out that they had been deceived, 
and to ask the question within themselves whether popes 
had any authority from the Bible or from St. Peter, and 
so it came to be felt by multitudes in every land that the 
papacy was unscriptural, and that the popes were temporal 
rulers, laboring not for the glory of God but for the main- 
tenance of their own luxurious style of living, 

And therefore, all honest Roman Catholic people ought 
to know that this claim of supremacy has no foundation in 
their own Testament, and certainly not in the Protestant 
Testament. There is not much difference between the 
two, after all. The Roman clergy make a great fuss 
over it ; but the great essentials which men ought to know 
are taught in both. There have been many alterations 
made in the Catholic as well as in the Protestant version, 
so that we can scarcely claim to have a copy of the original 
Douay Bible. But neither in the one nor in the other is 
there anything to prove that Christ appointed any of the 
Apostles to be rulers of the Church, or established the pa- 
pal supremacy. It has been founded in cunning, in bribery, 
in degradation, in covetousness, and in oppression. It has 
been established as a great temporal power, whereas the 
Christian Church is a spiritual power. The priests say 
that the Protestants are always denying, and offer nothing 
to the people but negativism and negation. Suppose that 
it be so. There is a great power in negations. Suppose 
you drop out certain negatives from religion, you would, I 
think, soon overturn all Christianity and all morality. 
They pretend to belief in the Ten Commandments. Sup- 
pose you omit the word ' not ' from the Ten Command- 
ments, how long would society hold together % Make the 
fifth commandment, 'thou shaft' instead of thou shalt not 
kill, or the sixth command thou shalt, instead of thou shall 
not commit adultery. The 'not' is the very heart and 
contains the very life blood of the commandments. There 
is no use, then, in saying that these denials of Protest- 



Papal Supremacy. 



15 



antism are nothing, and that Protestantism is a system of 
negations. Let not Protestants be frightened because the 
priest stands up in his robes and says that he has studied 
.all the theologies and the philosophies. It would be far 
better if he had a little common sense than to have read so 
many libraries and come and deceive the people, many of 
whom can hardly write their names. But their Church 
keeps them in that position, and wants them to believe 
nothing but her dictum. The great aim of the Catholic 
system is to keep the people in ignorance. The great aim 
of the Protestant system is to enlighten the people, so that 
they may not be led astray by the vain philosophy of de- 
ceitful men. 

You will observe that I have quoted from the Roman 
version itself, on which the claim of papal supremacy is 
based, and you have seen that when properly examined 
there is no such doctrine there. 

But some say that a great many Protestants are not good 
people. I reply, the fault is theirs. They .have the light 
and the opportunity, though many of them do not appre- 
ciate them. What efforts would you not make on behalf 
of your principles if the Roman Church had the same power 
here as it had in Spain, to cast you into dungeons, to take 
husbands from their wives, parents from their children, 
dragging them in the middle of the night to prison to die of 
starvation, to sink in mud till they are suffocated, or to be 
exposed to the sun in lofts till they are burned to death, 
so that in the end you would not know your own flesh and 
blood ? You would make any sacrifice to build up a true 
and pure Christianity, and when you got it you would 
glory in it. Yes, Christian liberty is a thing to be deeply 
and highly appreciated. If you surrender these liberties 
you are yourselves to blame. The people of this country 
are free and they ought to labor to maintain that freedom, 
and let no man claiming to succeed St. Peter deprive them 
or their children of that blessed gospel which Christ has 
brought to us. 



16 



Papal Supkemacy. 



Be faithful, friends, to the principles you have inherited 
from the Reformation. If your government is defective in 
some things take a pride in making it as perfect as possible, 
and keep away from the men whose hands are dripping 
with human blood. Keep clear from that pernicious system 
whose history is darkened with crime, murder, adultery, 
and bloodshed. Permit Romanism to govern the United 
States as it is striving to do, and you or your children 
will suffer as people have suffered in Italy and other parts 
of Catholic Europe. All true citizens of this great country 
should be united in opposing this system, which labors for 
man more than for the glory of God — more for an earthly 
power than for the enlightenment and salvation of 
mankind. 



V 

mi.-. , '.WKmSBnSm 



